Jagdeep Singh Sodhi, Patiala V. ITO, Patiala

ITA 478/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9800 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RISHAB KAPOOR
• Keywords: Source of fund

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 478/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI JAGDEEP SINGH SODHI, VS THE ITO, HARGOBIND NAGAR, WARD 4, SIRHIND ROAD, PATIALA. PATIALA. PAN: AMMPS6629M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RISHAB KAPOOR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 19.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.07.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), PATIALA DATED 25.02. 2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ADDITION OF RS. 3,73,845/- WAS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS . DURING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SUPPLY THE NAMES AND 2 ADDRESSES OF THE FRIENDS FROM WHOM HE BORROWED AMOUNTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH, ADDITIONS WERE MADE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS NOT HAVING GOOD RELATIONS WITH SUCH PERSONS FROM WHOM AMOUNTS WERE BORROWED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT FILE APPEAL AG AINST THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, LEVI ED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CONSIDER ING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE EXPLANATION , THEREFORE, ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT HE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH SOME PERSONS FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AND FOR WHICH, HE HAS PAID SOME ADVANCE MONEY. ON BEING CONFRONTED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF THE SAID PROPER TY, ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED REPLY BUT ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ABOVE ADDITION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM HIS FRIENDS AND ALSO CONTRIBUTED OU T OF PERSONAL WITHDRAWALS FROM THE FIRM. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE TH E SOURCE OF FUNDS USED FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE MERELY STATED THAT HE HAS BORROWED MONEY F ROM CERTAIN PERSONS BUT IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT OF FE ES OF RS. 5,500/- AND STAMP DUTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,68,345/- AS RECEIVED FROM THE FRIENDS COULD NOT B E PROPERLY EXPLAINED AND THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES FRO M 3 WHOM CASH IN THIS CONNECTION, HAS BEEN RECEIVED, HA S ALSO NOT BEEN MENTIONED. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRMED LEVY OF PENALTY AND DISMISSE D APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT F IND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SEE FILED CERTAIN EVIDENCES REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF T HE CASH FUNDS FOR GETTING THE REGISTRATION DONE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY EXPLANATION REGARDING PAYMENT OF FEES OF RS. 5,500/- AND PURCHASE OF STAM P DUTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,68,345/-. NO EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO RECEIPT OF ANY AMOUNT FROM THE FRIENDS WA S FILED. EVEN THE NAMES OF THE FRIENDS/PARTIES WERE ALSO NOT MENTIONED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE QUANTU M ADDITION HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY ASSESSEE BY NOT FILING ANY APPEAL. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PR ODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENDITURE, THEREFO RE, ASSESSEE FAILED TO SATISFY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WI TH REGARD TO ABOVE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO O FFER ANY EXPLANATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPLANATION RA ISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE, EXPLANATI ON-I TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS CLEARLY ATTRACTE D IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS, THUS, CONC EALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THEREFORE, AUTHORITIES B ELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY AGAINST THE 4 ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. SAME IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SA INI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21 ST JULY, 2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD